Fresh off his interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Mark Zuckerberg is being asked to remove the very popular “Scrabulous” app from Facebook. An article from the wires this morning cites copyright claims by two of the worlds largest toy companies.
I don’t think it is coincidence given that the 60 Minutes piece that aired recently showed the Scrabulous application. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but is seems rather suspect.
Aside from getting into a discussion over copyright, I wonder if the folks at Hasbro and Mattel could have approached this in a different manner? The application is quite popular on Facebook. Is this not likely to do more damage to the brand than good if they get their way and it is removed? Perhaps this is a move to supply Facebook with a “legit” version of the game. Or, perhaps it was the only thing the toy execs could do having been caught off-guard to the opportunity unfolding in the digital world to extend the brand. Instead of unleashing a killer app, they are opting to become an application killer.
Two things are clear to me. First, when it comes to bringing a game to life online, it seems like a lay-up in terms of moving off the shelf from Toys “R” Us and breathing new life via the digital world. The transition of content offered up as widgets, Facebook applications or whatever are sitting right in front of people’s noses. Webkinz and Club Penguin have been effective in mixing up the online and offline worlds, so is it really a stretch for established offline games to rethink the model?
Second, I am not a big Scrabble fan, but “Scrabble” has been talked about a lot lately. This is undoubtedly due to the popularity of the application on Facebook. Before this legal wrangle, I had no clue this was not the “offical” version of the game and I’ll bet you didn’t know either. So, the Scrabble brand has benefited. If I am Hasbro and Mattel, I’d like to find out who programmed the application and put them on staff.
Perhaps Zuckerberg and Co. should try out an angle with select brands (or their agencies) where brand managers and application developers team up to build branded content/games like “Scrabulous” that people will use and love – where the advertising is in the game itself.
It is less likely to create the furor seen with Beacon and Social Ads. I mean, if a fast-food giant like Burger King can do advergaming, why can’t the game people?
UPDATE: My friend Shel Holtz of For Immediate Release fame and the blog A Shel of My Former Self has a great post explaining the rationale behind the lawsuit. He worked for Mattel, worth a read.

As of tonight, bogglific has been renamed B-lific on Facebook. It’s down for maintenance and a scheduled relaunch is on Jan. 24. Guess they don’t want to be the next Scrabulous: http://apps.facebook.com/b-lific/ (Facebook membership and login required)

Scrabulous has caused great controversy amongst “facebookers.” Like myself, most are very upset with the decision to remove the application. As said above, the application has generated more interest in Hasbro’s name and has made young people who have never played scrabble begin playing. Hasbro’s communication team has not commented on what they are planning on doing. Will Hasbro’s unwise decisions hurt the company? What do they plan to do for the people who are addicted to scrabulous? What should be done here?

I completely agree. We have discussed this issue in-depth in my media relations course. The news even broadcast statistics that said the Scrabble games were flying off the shelves once “Scrabulous” became so popular on Facebook. As a young adult Facebook is our main form of social media and Scrabble should be thankful and consider “Scrabulous” as free advertising to millions of people, rather than getting into legal issues.
Thanks,
Sommer Ellis

I am really glad that you addressed this in your blog and I completely agree with your views on the way Hasbro dealt with the Facebook application of Scrabulous. As you mentioned, Scrabulous garnered an immense amount of attention for Hasbro with 600,000 people accessing the application per day. The application generated brand awareness, contributed to the mainstream appeal of the game and had board games flying off the shelves and into the hands of teens and young adults. Hasbro could have used this free social media to its advantage, gaining customers and increasing sales by collaborating with the Scrabulous creators.
Ignoring what Hasbro could have and should have done, I believe that the company’s largest error was the way it communicated the copyright infringement. Hasbro lawyers are the only spokespeople commenting on behalf of the company. Where are the professional communicators? Lawyers are an essential part of a business because they protect a company’s rights but communicators are equally as important because they protect the relationship between an organization and its public. By failing to invite communicators to the table, Hasbro has alienated the sole person that determines its profitability, the customer. I believe that this oversight could lead to plummeting sales of the Scrabble board game and disillusionment with the brand.
Do you agree that the communication tactics used in this case could negatively affect sales of the board game?
Katie Zier-Vogel